They contended that "[i]f the settlement seems small given the plaintiff's injuries, then in light of the provisions of [New York General Obligations Law ('GOL') Section] 15-108(a), the non-settling defendants will want to introduce evidence of [the consulting doctor's alleged] negligence." They added that if the settlement appeared close to the full value of the case, "it will be enough for the non-settling defendants to fend off the claims against them, and challenge the severity of the injuries claimed."

GOL § 15-108(a) provides that when a plaintiff settles with one defendant, the plaintiff's recovery against the remaining defendants is reduced by the greater of the amount paid in the settlement or the settling defendant's equitable share of fault as apportioned by the jury.

Ms. Appleyard opposed the motion, stating that the settling parties had agreed to keep the terms of the settlement agreement confidential, and that they only were obligated to disclose the settlement amount after a verdict was rendered against Mr. Tigges and Orthopedic Associates.

The Trial Court's Decision

The court denied the motion.

In its decision, the trial court explained that settlement agreements were "highly favored" because a negotiated compromise of a dispute avoided "potentially costly, time-consuming litigation" and helped preserve "scarce judicial resources."

The trial court added that, under certain circumstances, confidentiality was necessary "to protect the litigants and/or encourage a fair resolution."

The trial court then pointed out that a non-settling defendant "may be" entitled to discovery of a confidential settlement between a plaintiff and a settling defendant or defendants if the terms of the settlement were "material and necessary to the defense of an action." However, the trial court continued, the term "material and necessary" was "not intended to address a defendant's desire to obtain the settlement information with the express goal of using it as some form of trial strategy."

The trial court stated that Section 15-108(a) required the disclosure of the confidential agreement's settlement amount, but only after a verdict was rendered against Mr. Tigges and/or Orthopedic Associates to determine post-verdict apportionment.

The trial court was not persuaded by the arguments put forth by Mr. Tigges and Orthopedic Associates that they were entitled to the information now because if the settlement amount seemed small given Ms. Appleyard's injuries, then they would introduce at trial evidence of the consulting doctor's alleged negligence and that if the settlement appeared close to the full value of the case, then at trial they might just challenge the severity of the injuries Ms. Appleyard claimed.

The trial court reasoned that, in making these arguments, it appeared that Mr. Tigges and Orthopedic Associates believed that Vassar Brothers Hospital's fault or the severity of Ms. Appleyard's injury could be determined by the settlement amount, but the trial court found this to be "pure speculation" that amounted to "nothing more than trial strategy."

In the trial court's view, this was "insufficient to qualify as material and necessary to the defense of the action to warrant disclosure of the instant settlement agreement."

Accordingly, the trial court ruled that Mr. Tigges and Orthopedic Associates were not entitled to see the settlement agreement at this time.

The case is Appleyard v. Tigges, No. 24491/14 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. Dec. 6, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Plaintiff: Ernest S. Buonocore, Esq., Shapiro Law Office, PLLC, Bronx, New York. For Tigges & Orthopedic Associates: Wayne M. Rubin, Esq., Feldman, Kleidman, Coffey & Sappe, LLP, Fishkill, New York.